Thanks for the comment. Now I will try to guess who is the author of this
brilliant idea.
+ The names of the 14 representatives who approved ADIF 3.1.0 are listed below.
Most ideas in ADIF evolve as they are batted around for awhile. No one keeps
track of who first proposed a particular concept; to do so would be
counterproductive.
Essentially, this is probably good for the many experimental modulation types
that periodically appear and immediately die as unclaimed.
But for the type of FT4, which is preparing to become a major in amateur radio
communications, this is absolutely unacceptable. It will be correct to re-vote
back while there is still time. This will be a wise decision.
+ Anyone can post comments to the ADIF development group. However,
unsubstantiated assertions like those immediately above, will likely be
ignored.
+ The fact that FT4 is represented in ADIF QSO records with <MODE:4>MFSK
<SUBMODE:3>FT4 instead of <MODE:3>FT4 will in no way impede the adoption or use
of FT4.
+ If an ADIF-supporting application is so poorly constructed that with 6 years
notice, it can't readily be extended to support the use of SUBMODE, then that
application belongs in the dustbin of history.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
_______________________________________________
wsjt-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
